On the Boundary
As I write this I am somewhat pre-occupied with Test Cricket. In many amateur matches cricket is played without boundaries: perhaps if the ball is hit into a hedge or a road that’s good enough to count as a four or six; but in the real game you have to have boundaries. If I’m a spectator at the Oval for example, it’s good to sit as near to the boundary as possible but woe betide me if I trespass into the playing area. I shall soon be bustled off by a steward and even more forcefully if I’ve decided on streaking. If I’m a player and I decide to stand outside the boundary rope I shall quickly be put in my proper place by my captain. I may of course cross the boundary by mistake, trying for instance to catch a ball that’s going to give us a wicket so long as I stay inside the boundary, whereas if I step over the boundary rope I’ll be giving away six runs and a wicket. I could then be rather unpopular.
This look at cricket boundaries is very similar to the way almost all human groups behave. This is very clear if we look at political or religious parties. A good Liberal Democrat may worry about his leader – (too old?); a good Conservative may admire Mr Cameron but fear what changes he may want; a good Socialist may hate Mr Blair because of the Iraqi war. Yet for the most part all these will stay loyal to their party. Those who leave, and especially those who switch will incur the wrath of the majority of party members who want unity above all else. Traitors to our cause, collaborators with the enemy.should be abominated.
So it is that within religions groups will always be striving to maintain the ‘purity’ of their faith, while a minority will seek to move outside the traditional boundaries. In Iraq for many Sunnis the greatest enemy is not the occupiers but the Shia and vice versa. In Christianity it is ‘heretics’ who are more the enemy than atheists.
My hunch is though that it is precisely the people on the margins, at the boundaries who ultimately prevail and most help their cause. Winston Churchill did just that when he changed party allegiance, Jesus did that when he opposed the religious leaders of this time, who hated him so much that he had to be killed. For him love of his fellow men and women and children was of infinitely greater importance than the minute fulfilling of the law.
-Peter Graham
Yeah, you always need reformers. Though I think the people who almost or used to agree with you are always worse than those who you don’t have anything in common with.
Certainly, say, David Brock or David Horowitz gets a lot more venom than they would’ve if they’d never ’seen the light’ and switched over.
When I think about it, they tend to spew a lot more venom, too. Hmm.